MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624377553 · doi:10.17951/sil.2016.25.4.25

Granting Foreigners the International Protection in the Republic of Poland

2017· article· en· W2624377553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anna Fermus-Bobowiec, Edyta Lis

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Iuridica Lublinensia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Law and Migration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionAcademic Association for Contemporary European StudiesCarleton University
KeywordsLegislationRefugeeEuropean unionPolitical scienceLawMember stateEconomic JusticeCommissionOrder (exchange)Member statesBusinessInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After so-called Arab Spring increasing number of people seeking international protection in the EU Member States became noticeable. In 2015 over 1 million people and by the June 2016 around 156 thousand refugees, displaced persons and other migrants went to Europe, either escaping from the internal conflict or searching for better social welfare. European Commission has undertaken actions in order to stop influx to Europe, e.g. donated funds equivalent to the 83 million euro to the urgent refugee relief in Greece and also supports refugees staying in Turkey, and this country, from the beginning of conflict in Syria, i.e. from 2011, received the help equivalent to the 455 million euro. The EU did not only confine itself to grant the financial aid, but also revised its primary and secondary law. The basic aim of this changes was to increase refugees’ protection regime, to ensure that co-called Dublin system, which establishes criteria for determining the Member State responsible for consideration of an application for asylum, will be more effective and fair system. It is noteworthy that one of the main factor that caused these changes were, due to their relevance, judgements of European Court of Human Rights and case law of the European Union Court of Justice in so-called Dublin cases. EU asylum and migration policy has a major impact on legislation of its Member States, including Polish legislation. Therefore, in order to adapt Polish law to European Union law, the act of 10th September 2015 on the amendment to the act on granting foreigners the protection in the Republic of Poland and some other acts, which implements to the Polish legal system all of provisions of the directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2013/32/UE, so-called procedural directive, the directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2013/33/UE, so-called reception directive, and for adjustment of Polish law to the regulation of the European Parliament and the Council 604/2013/UE, so-called Dublin III, was passed. This paper highlighted the most important amendments to the act of 13 th June 2003 on granting foreigners protection in the Republic of Poland, which concern the international protection, i.e. granting an alien the status of refugee and subsidiary protection status, including obligations arising for Poland from the international law, as well as law of the European Union in this respect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Iuridica LublinensiaSame topicEuropean Law and MigrationFrench-language works237,207